The presidential candidate has repeatedly claimed the alleged work experience in an attempt to connect with low-wage workers.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris has repeatedly claimed that she worked at McDonald’s while getting her undergraduate degree in the 1980s. This claim has been reported by multiple reputable news outlets, but aside from Harris’ own testimony, there is no independent evidence such as a photo, employment record, or confirmation from a friend or family member to verify the story. Harris has invoked the alleged McDonald’s work experience throughout her political career, including in a 2024 presidential campaign ad and during a 2024 appearance on “The Drew Barrymore Show.” Other prominent Democrats, such as former President Bill Clinton, have also repeated the anecdote. However, some internet users have challenged the claim, with unverified reports that “McDonald’s Corporate sources” have no record of Harris working at their locations. Snopes reached out to Harris’ campaign and McDonald’s headquarters seeking evidence to corroborate the claim, but as of the report’s publication, no such proof has been uncovered. Without tangible evidence to independently confirm or debunk the story, Snopes has rated the claim “Research In Progress” as they continue to investigate.

    • Capt. Wolf
      8•3 months ago

      Unlike Trump who totally didn’t tell Isreal to “finish up” and to get it over with “fast” because they were “losing the PR war” and then, when Biden didn’t supply weapons to Israel, claimed Biden “abandoned” them.

      Oh, and who, just a month ago pledged to help save Israel while also saying that Harris hates them? Who also failed to cut military aid to Israel during his presidency? Oh, right, also Trump.

      Neither of our primary parties are going to back down on Israeli support any time soon. While I don’t approve of what’s happening. It’s foolish to think that this is a dividing factor in this election. It’s not.

        • @benderbeerman@sh.itjust.works
          4•3 months ago

          False dichotomy.

          Since there’s only 2 viable candidates, then one of them is going to win. Both of them support the genocide.

          You are not conceding on genocide if you are going to pick the one you disagree with less, ethically and morally speaking, outside of that.

          If you don’t vote, or if you vote for a non-viable candidate, then you are conceding on all the other ethics and morals that you would otherwise agree with, just by not voting for the less bad but viable one, whoever you believe that is.

          You are actively supporting all the negative things about the candidate you agree with least by not voting for one of the two primary candidates.

          It sucks, but guess what… when you are stuck on a sinking boat, you can sit in angry defiance and complain all you want about how you don’t support the way that your boat manufacturer supported genocide. Or you can pitch in and try to save the fucking people on the boat with you.

          One of these behaviors could make someone look like a selfish asshole.

          Unless you are introducing a viable candidate who is against the genocide, then there is no concession being made on genocide.

          FOH with your false dichotomy.

          • Victoria Antoinette
            0•3 months ago

            You are actively supporting all the negative things about the candidate you agree with least by not voting for one of the two primary candidates.

            that’s not what active support is.

          • Victoria Antoinette
            -2•3 months ago

            Unless you are introducing a viable candidate

            viability is a media myth. kerry was viable. mccain was viable.

            • Capt. Wolf
              1•3 months ago

              McCain was a Republican and Kerry is a Democrat. Of course they were viable! They have nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

              Also, it’s not a media myth that third parties aren’t viable. It’s statistically proven fact. Third party candidates only poll around 1-3% of the popular vote by state, cumulatively, and none have received an electoral college vote since '68. The last viable third party candidate was Perot and even he couldn’t win a state.

              I wish it wasn’t the case, because 2 candidates no longer provide enough variability in policy, but it’s the truth.

              • Victoria Antoinette
                -1•3 months ago

                McCain was a Republican and Kerry is a Democrat. Of course they were viable!

                they didn’t win. the label of “viable” is a myth.

          • Socialist Mormon Satanist
            -11•3 months ago

            You are actively supporting all the negative things about the candidate you agree with least by not voting for one of the two primary candidates.

            This argument is a classic example of fearmongering that keeps the status quo alive.

            Voting for the “less bad” candidate out of fear just perpetuates the very system that got us into this mess. Choosing between two evils still supports evil.

            True change doesn’t come from settling for the lesser of two bad options; it comes from standing up for what you truly believe in, even if that means going against the grain.

            If the boat is sinking because of the same flawed thinking that built it, patching it up with more of the same won’t save anyone. It’s time to build a new boat, not just keep bailing water on the old one.